Claim Verification

Digital libraries, repositories, and AI-mediated knowledge services increasingly rely on generative systems to produce summaries, descriptions, and other multi-claim knowledge objects. Yet generation can scale far more easily than verification capacity: a reviewer may need to decide whether an object is suitable for publication or downstream use after checking only a small fraction of its claims. This creates a fundamental gap between claim-level verification and confidence in the object as a whole. The central question is therefore what a successful partial check implies about the reliability of the complete artifact when its size grows but the verification budget does not. This paper contributes a Bayesian model of bounded verification centered on the Predictive Value of Pass (PVP). The model predicts that evidentiary value decreases as artifacts grow under fixed verification capacity, improves with larger verification budgets, and is especially fragile when errors are sparse. Controlled experiments on FEVEROUS and FEVER support these predictions and show that adding supported claims around a fixed number of false or unsupported claims can make passing more likely while making a pass less informative. The model further yields the minimum verification budget required to maintain a target PVP, providing a practical component for AI-assisted quality-assurance workflows in which generated knowledge objects must be checked before publication or downstream use.

Large language models (LLMs) are widely used for claim verification, yet remain brittle for numerical reasoning: even small changes in value can sharply degrade accuracy. We show that this brittleness persists in frontier LLMs, but can be mitigated through adversarial fine-tuning on numerically perturbed examples. Using parameter-efficient fine-tuning, small Qwen3 models (0.6B$\unicode{x2013}$8B) reach 98.7% accuracy on label-flipping perturbations, outperforming larger zero-shot models and frontier systems (GPT-5.4 Pro (74.0%) and Gemini 2.5 Flash (73.9%)). The gains generalise to unseen perturbation types, indicating robust numerical decision boundaries rather than memorised edits. Robustness also transfers without target-domain data, significantly improving cross-lingual performance in Spanish. We further show that the same fine-tuning recipe confers robustness to evidence-side perturbations, using the VitaminC dataset.

As generative AI makes polished prose cheap to produce, users can no longer rely on fluency as a proxy for truth. We call this failure mode the Fluency Trap: users trust fluent hallucinations while also discounting accurate content once it is disclosed as AI-generated. Binary ``Made with AI'' labels respond with authorship disclosure, but they do not show what supports a claim. We propose Provenance Density, an evidence-visualization interface that shows the density of verified claims in a text. In a user study with 81 participants, an idealized Provenance Density interface produced a large discernment gap between truth and fabrication ($+4.15$ points, $d=1.82$), whereas participants given no signal showed no detectable discrimination. A technical audit with 200 samples shows that retrieval density alone is insufficient; unexpectedly, the Consistency Veto carries most of the discriminative signal on dynamic queries. As AI-generated content becomes indistinguishable from human writing, effective transparency must move from authorship disclosure toward evidence visualization.

Agent evaluations face two distinct evidentiary questions: whether a reported claim is recomputable from retained evidence (sufficiency), and whether the retained records cover the committed experiment set (coverage). Generic logs and hash-linked transcripts answer neither reliably. We introduce ClaimReceipt, a claim-relative receipt specification and selective verifier that binds typed transaction evidence to a signed experiment manifest and returns PASS, INVALID, or INCONCLUSIVE per claim. We freeze the specification before implementation (SHA-256 18d109...b81). On 1,392 historical buyer--seller records, a CR-2 verifier reproduces all five manually labeled audit verdicts, exactly replays 600 deterministic and 792 post-generation records, makes every one of 13 declared field groups non-redundant under tested ablations, and returns the expected result on 11/11 semantic faults with 0/8 false positives. We then run a separate prospective CR-3 epoch: 30 assignments are committed before inference, terminal receipts are signed and chained, and private evidence is encrypted for an auditor. Complete evidence yields coverage and accounting PASS; withholding one terminal receipt returns INCONCLUSIVE_COVERAGE, while withholding all private openings preserves coverage and protocol verification but makes economic claims inconclusive, exactly matching a preregistered prediction. Receipt instrumentation adds 0.021% of model-inference time and 9.9 KB per transaction. A specification-legibility probe indicates that our own frozen specification is not yet unambiguous to an independent reader. Claim verification therefore requires both claim-sufficient evidence and a committed universe against which omissions become visible.

Vision Language Models have demonstrated remarkable proficiency in interpreting static visual artifacts, but modern data analysis is inherently dynamic, requiring the active interrogation of interactive environments. Existing benchmarks are predominantly constrained to static imagery and one-shot question answering and fail to capture the epistemic demands of this domain, where evidence is frequently occluded, distributed across linked views, or conditionally revealed through user agency. In this paper, we introduce InSight, a benchmark for agentic claim verification over interactive visualizations. The dataset consists of 21,349 claims derived from human-authored analytical narratives and grounded in fully interactive web-based environments. Agents must navigate these environments to determine whether a natural language claim is supported, refuted or not verifiable given the available evidence. Unlike traditional evaluations, InSight treats interaction traces as intrinsic proxies for reasoning, enabling a rigorous audit of how models seek and synthesize visual evidence. We evaluate state-of-the-art models, revealing that interactive verification remains a non-trivial challenge. We release InSight at https://github.com/maevehutch/insight.

Social media fact-checking has long been challenged by evidence-level and aggregation-level conflicts, where erroneous evidence mimics authoritative news sources. To capture this challenge and support conflict verification tasks, we present ContraNote, a large-scale real-world dataset curated from X's Community Notes system. It includes 33,686 posts for evaluating evidence-level conflict resolution, and 54,474 instances for evaluating aggregation-level prioritization. Additionally, we propose CoVer, a factual adjudication framework with three-stage pipelines: evidence schema normalization, factual consensus and support verification. This prioritizes evidence over noise to prevent it from compromising the final verdict. Technical evaluations show that CoVer achieves strong performance compared with state-of-the-art baselines across ContraNote (86.0% Acc., 68.0% mac. F1, 64.5 bal. Acc. on Conflict; and 88.5% Acc., 88.5 mac. F1 and 89.2 bal. Acc. on Prioritization), CONFACT-HumC (88.4% Acc.) and CONFACT-ModC (89.4% Acc.).

Assessing claim check-worthiness is an essential first step in automated fact-checking pipelines. This work is motivated by a real deployment challenge at an early-stage startup: running large language models (LLMs) over every incoming claim is cost- and latency-prohibitive, yet smaller models sacrifice accuracy. We propose NN-PPI, a pointwise extension of Prediction-Powered Inference (PPI) that calibrates model predictions at inference time as a lightweight post-hoc layer, without re-training the underlying model. NN-PPI achieves weighted F1 gains ranging from 12% to 33.80% depending on the size and performance of the baseline model, bringing SLMs on par with larger LLMs. Beyond few-shot SLMs, NN-PPI further improves a production-deployed fine-tuned model, demonstrating that residual calibration is complementary to supervised fine-tuning. By recovering LLM-level accuracy from models that are an order of magnitude cheaper to serve, it makes accurate check-worthiness detection substantially cheaper to operate at scale. Our code and data can be found at https://anonymous.4open.science/r/arr-claim-worthiness-F237.

Scientific claim verification over a cited paper requires predicting the claim--paper relation and identifying the paragraphs that justify that prediction. This setting poses two linked challenges: within-paper distractors often resemble genuine evidence, while a classifier trained on gold evidence must operate on retrieved evidence at inference. We present HNR-DAC, a two-stage framework that trains each stage on the cases it will actually encounter. Hard-Negative Reranking (HNR) quantifies evidence confusability using a base reranker's scores on non-gold paragraphs and contrasts gold evidence against the most confusable candidates. Distribution-Aligned Classification (DAC) trains on the Top-1 paragraph produced by the same frozen HNR used to construct inference inputs, while HNR's Top-3 paragraph identifiers provide the evidence output. On the NLPCC 2026 Task 10 Track 2, the final configuration obtains 97.21% Hit@3, 95.79% Macro-F1, 94.47% Joint@3, and an average score of 95.13%. The corresponding submission ranks third on the official Track 2 leaderboard while achieving the highest overall Macro-F1 of 93.05%, alongside 70.16% Joint@3 and an average score of 81.61%.

The reliability of Large Language Models (LLMs) is often compromised by factual inconsistencies, including hallucinations---cases where generated content is not supported by the underlying source. We present HallDetect, a lightweight, reference-free, and black-box framework for hallucination detection that we evaluate not only on summarization but across a broader range of source-grounded generation settings. HallDetect builds on decomposition-based factuality evaluation: generated content is decomposed into atomic claims, each verified by a compact encoder-based entailment model through a contrastive formulation over a multi-scale library of source chunks, and aggregated with an asymmetric score in which a single confidently contradicted claim flags the response. Under a controlled protocol in which all methods share the same 4-bit quantized backbones and consumer-grade hardware budget, HallDetect outperforms comparably resourced generative and embedding-based baselines on three of four benchmarks while remaining stable across backbone families, and yields a claim-to-span audit trail that localizes each error.

AI agents can draft claims faster than authors can check whether the cited or retrieved evidence supports them. We study evidence-ledger adjudication: a claim-evidence traceability workflow that pairs each claim with an evidence packet, assigns a support relation, and routes unsupported, contradicted, or mixed-evidence claims back to the author. The empirical core is a 2,335-row blind benchmark built from independent external labels in AVeriTeC, CLIMATE-FEVER, and SciFact. Gold relations and source evidence labels are hidden during prediction and joined only for scoring. On this benchmark, the agent evidence-ledger condition achieves 0.676 relation accuracy and 0.601 macro-F1, compared with 0.383 accuracy and 0.303 macro-F1 for the best non-agent baseline. It also routes 1270/1435 claims whose gold labels indicate contradiction, missing evidence, or mixed evidence, while routing 295/900 supported claims. These results show that evidence-ledger adjudication can turn heterogeneous evidence packets into an auditable traceability layer for AI-assisted writing.

Automated verification of numerical claims is a challenging problem, as it requires both language understanding and quantitative reasoning. This paper describes our system for CLEF 2026 CheckThat! Task 2, which focuses on ranking reasoning traces generated by large language models (LLMs) and predicting a final verdict for numerical claims in English and Arabic. We explore two approaches. The first approach fine-tunes an LLM-based verifier using LoRA to score each reasoning trace independently as a binary classification problem, and selects the final verdict using Best-of-N selection. We further experiment with adaptive sub-claim decomposition to break complex claims into simpler parts before verification. The second approach uses a lightweight TF-IDF reward model with handcrafted numeric and temporal overlap features to score traces, and aggregates scores by verdict group to determine the final prediction. For Arabic, we compare a general multilingual model against AraBERT, a language-specific model pretrained on Arabic text. Our results show that the LLM-based approach outperforms the lightweight reward model on most metrics, particularly Recall@5, while the reward-based approach shows stronger performance on the Conflicting class. Sub-claim decomposition did not improve performance, suggesting that claim splitting introduces noise rather than aiding reasoning. For Arabic, AraBERT outperforms the multilingual baseline across most metrics.

We present DualityCert, a symbolic verifier for candidate Seiberg-duality claims in four-dimensional N=1 quiver gauge theories. The verifier evaluates 't Hooft anomaly matching, superpotential R-charge consistency, central-charge matching, and a bounded chiral-ring proxy. A claim that passes receives a consistency certificate, which states that no tested inconsistency was found, not that the duality is proven. We use the verifier as a repair environment for language-model agents, which receive a deliberately broken claim and must edit it until it certifies. On a preregistered benchmark of 145 broken claims, with the analysis fixed before the first confirmatory model call, verifier-gated retry improves final repair success over a single attempt by +8.3 percentage points (pp) on deepseek-chat and +7.1 pp on qwen-plus (Holm-adjusted p<0.002). Under an equal budget of eleven attempts, the stop-first strategy portfolio underperforms independent verifier-filtered resampling by 10.3 percentage points on deepseek-chat but outperforms it by 14.7 points on qwen-plus, reversing the ordering of the two tested verifier-exploitation policies across the two confirmatory models. On qwen-plus, category-level verifier feedback is worth +8.7 pp over content-free retry, and interpretable obligation identities alone are worth +6.4 pp over structurally identical masked feedback. Neither effect is detected on deepseek-chat. Separately, a preregistered MiniMax-M2.5 extension again finds an iteration gain and independent verifier-filtered resampling outperforming the strategy portfolio. Which policy is better thus differs between the two models, while every winning policy uses the same cheap certificate. The verifier, benchmark, protocol, and all per-attempt records are released.

Objective Structured Clinical Examinations (OSCEs) are the gold standard for assessing clinical competence, yet scoring remains vulnerable to examiner subjectivity, fatigue, and cognitive bias. Standard examiner validation via inter-rater statistics lacks explanatory power regarding the source of errors, as it neither analyzes examiner reasoning nor verifies examiner claims against actual events. Thus, we introduce Quality Action Assurance (QAA), a multimodal framework that verifies examiner claims in Virtual Reality (VR) pediatric OSCEs by comparing actions claimed by examiners against a reference record of events constructed from video, VR logs, and actor annotations. QAA combines a constrained temporal action alignment model, which performs action localization and actor source attribution, with a large language model that extracts examiner claims and checks them against the record. Across a 5-fold cross-validation, QAA achieves 99.2% $\pm$ 0.7% Actor F1 and 93.4% $\pm$ 1.9% W@16 for temporal alignment. Overall, QAA detects examiner errors with 69.9% precision and 76.7% recall; in retrospective evaluation, correcting the detected errors raises the share of factually correct transcripts from 39.2% to 79.2%, supporting fairer OSCE quality assessment.

Community Notes, a bridging-based crowd-sourced fact-checking system, has emerged as a new mechanism for moderating misleading information on social media and has been adopted by major platforms including X, Facebook, Instagram, Threads, and TikTok. Since its introduction, there has been an open question about what role AI could play in scaling and optimizing the system. Recently, X extended its Community Notes system by introducing Collaborative Notes: notes initially drafted by an LLM and iteratively refined based on feedback from human contributors. In this work, we systematically analyze the complete corpus of 19,146 collaborative notes and 211,850 instances of human feedback. First, we develop a taxonomy of human suggestions for improving AI-generated note drafts and find that suggestions involving factual corrections and additional context are most likely to be incorporated, while subjective policy judgments rarely are. Second, we examine changes in helpfulness across versions of collaborative notes and find that human feedback leads to more helpful notes, with the greatest impact coming from suggestions that challenge the main claim in the previous draft, particularly when submitted by more active contributors. Finally, we find that although collaborative notes improve through human feedback, they reach helpful status and are shown on the platform at lower rates than human-only or AI-only notes, with limited human participation emerging as a key bottleneck. Nevertheless, rather than serving as a weaker substitute, collaborative notes tend to play a complementary role, predominantly targeting posts that do not attract human-only or AI-only notes. Our analysis provides an initial description of efforts to use AI to improve crowdsourced content moderation in a real-world moderation system and outlines pathways for future improvements to such features.

In contemporary societies, the threat of disinformation has reached alarming levels, exacerbated by the proliferation of electronic communication, social media, and advancements in artificial intelligence. As a result, there is an urgent need to develop effective countermeasures to mitigate this menace. However, the sheer scale of the problem renders manual fact-checking and human-based verification inadequate, underscoring the necessity for automated methods to detect and debunk disinformation. This article proposes a novel approach based on a multi-agent system that emulates the decision-making processes of human annotators engaged in disinformation detection tasks. By incorporating a consensus mechanism, diversity in cognition and diversity in knowledge, and also hierarchical structure, inspired by human annotators' behavior, the proposed method achieves superior results compared to individual Large Language Models (LLMs), including GPT 4 and GPT 3.5. The system leverages open models (e.g., LLaMA, Kimi, Qwen, Deepseek and LLaMA-Nemotron) to ensure greater transparency. The evaluation of the proposed method encompasses datasets in languages with varying resource availability, including English (high-resource), Polish (medium-resource), Slovak (low-resource) and Bulgarian (low-resource). Experiments were conducted on tasks such as direct disinformation detection, identification of texts worthy of verification, and detection of texts containing verifiable factual claims.

Large Language Models such as GPT-4o and GPT-5 achieve strong zero-shot performance on biomedical claim verification, but cost and opacity limit scalable use. We fine-tune three small LLMs: Phi-3-mini (3.8B), Qwen2.5-3B, and Mistral-7B, via QLoRA on SciFact and HealthVer, providing the first study of QLoRA models against GPT-4o and fine-tuned BioLinkBERT encoders. Mistral-7B QLoRA surpasses both GPT-4o and GPT-5 (up to 12% F1 gain) at a fractional cost using just 1,008 training examples. We conduct extensive in-domain and cross-domain evaluation: models trained on SciFact tested on HealthVer and vice versa, at matched sizes to isolate dataset structure from data quantity. We identify a previously unreported structural artifact in SciFact that inflates in-domain scores, and show through bidirectional out-of-domain evaluation that training on structurally sound data enables robust cross-domain transfer. We plan to release all code and adapter checkpoints.

Spoken factual claims often occur within multi-turn conversations, where surrounding dialogue can provide context unavailable from the claim alone. Yet most fact-checking research evaluates isolated text, leaving conversational audio under-studied. We introduce MAD2, a synthetic Multi-turn Audio Dialogues benchmark for spoken claim verification with 1,000 two-speaker dialogues, 1,230 sentence-level check-worthy candidate annotations, and approximately 10 hours of audio. We also propose calibrated multimodal fusion of a context-aware audio encoder and a dialogue-aware text model. Adding dialogue context improves verification across settings, although the gains vary by scenario. Past-only context often approaches local offline performance, suggesting its usefulness when future context is unavailable. Fusion achieves its highest mean advantage over text with full-dialogue context, but does not consistently or significantly outperform text across settings. Under full-dialogue context, exploratory subgroup results show greater performance variation across dialogue scenarios for text and fusion, but across spread styles for audio.

Table reasoning remains challenging for large language models (LLMs), particularly in tasks that require multi-step inference over long and structured tables. Existing approaches predominantly rely on single-direction reasoning, which limits their ability to explore alternative hypotheses across tasks. In this work, we propose CRAFT, a unified Counterfactual Reasoning Framework that reformulates Tabular question answering and fact verification into a general bidirectional verification process. Our method explicitly constructs both declarative statements and their counterfactual variants. Evidence is then extracted from reasoning along both the original and counterfactual paths, and integrated via a weighted mechanism to arrive at the final answer. Experimental results show that our approach consistently surpasses representative baselines on table reasoning datasets such as WikiTQ and TabFact, achieving especially large improvements on complex question answering. Our framework also significantly mitigates performance gaps between different backbone LLMs. This indicates that counterfactual reasoning effectively overcomes the limitations of single-direction inference, guiding LLMs toward more discerning reasoning and establishing a more principled paradigm for structured reasoning tasks. Our code will be made publicly available upon acceptance.

Grounded claim factuality checking is important for large language model (LLM) applications such as retrieval-augmented generation, as it helps users assess the correctness of generated outputs. Existing metrics using entailment classifiers require dataset-specific threshold tuning, while LLM-based approaches often use direct prompting, which underutilises the reasoning capabilities of LLMs. We address this by formulating grounded claim factuality checking as a true/false reading comprehension task and prompting LLMs with explicit test-taking strategies for efficient reasoning. Our method reduces token usage by over 80% compared to unguided open-ended reasoning, and achieves competitive performance to more expensive alternatives across two factuality benchmarks, setting a new state of the art on one. To further reduce inference cost, we train small language models (SLMs) to replace LLMs in the checking pipeline. Using supervised fine-tuning (SFT) and a self-revision mechanism, the SLMs learn to improve their factuality judgements. Experimental results show that the resulting SLMs perform on par with strong baselines, combining low inference costs with generating supporting rationales to support interpretability. Code and datasets will be released upon acceptance.

Claim verification splits between end-to-end classifiers that are accurate but yields no inspectable traces, and decomposition-based methods produce inspectable traces but lag performance on benchmark datasets. We propose DecomposeRL an accurate claim-verifier that produce inspectable traces. DecomposeRL frames decomposition as an RL policy trained with GRPO and a multi-faceted reward ensemble, enabling both fully supervised and semi-supervised learning from unlabeled claims. DecomposeRL addresses the prohibitive training cost of GRPO with a data-curation funnel that distills 115K fact-verification claims into a compact, learning-signal-dense subset of 5K claims. We show that a DecomposeRL-7B policy trained with full supervision on only ~5K curated claims achieves 86.3 in-domain and 69.8 out-of-domain balanced accuracy across 11 claim-verification benchmarks containing biomedical, political, scientific, and general-domain claims. Despite being 4x smaller, it matches 32B baselines and GPT-4.1-mini, and it further outperforms baselines in a semi-supervised setting with only 10% labeled claims data. Code, data, and models are available at https://dipta007.github.io/DecomposeRL

Evidence absence is not evidence insufficiency, but fact verification benchmarks can make them observationally similar. The Not Enough Information (NEI) label is often operationalized through constructed evidence conditions, and that choice silently determines what a verifier learns. We introduce NEI-CAP, a construction-aware diagnostic protocol for insufficient-evidence evaluation. Each NEI example carries the construction family that produced it; NEI-CAP audits shortcut cues, validates hard cases through human adjudication, and tests whether competence transfers across constructions. We instantiate the protocol on SciFact, with FEVER and HoVer as bounded external controls. Across these settings, NEI competence does not transfer reliably: encoder verifiers and an instruction-tuned decoder trained on shortcut-prone constructions fail to recognize semantically related insufficient evidence, and mixed-construction training narrows but does not close the gap. Fixed-claim diagnostics further show that the evidence condition shifts confidence in the reference Support/Refute label, not only NEI recall, so an aggregate NEI score can hide which problem a model has actually solved. We therefore recommend reporting the construction family alongside the score, and distill the results into a checklist for benchmarks that carry an insufficient-evidence label.

Medical RAG systems in high-risk QA settings are often evaluated through a single answer-or-abstain decision, but mixed evidence may support one claim, require conditions for another, and contradict a third. We study claim-selective certification: each response is decomposed into verifiable claims, scored against retrieved evidence, and mapped by an intent-aware selector to {full, partial, conflict, abstain}. On the primary weak-label certificate protocol, whose real-source-only dev/test rows cover the naturally occurring non-abstain actions, the full system records UCCR=0.0000, PAU=1.0000, PAU Precision=0.9901, and action accuracy=0.9204 on dev (n=314), and UCCR=0.0000, PAU=0.9967, PAU Precision=0.9739, and action accuracy=0.8997 on test (n=319). UCCR measures unsupported-claim risk within the certificate definition, and a source-missing counterfactual slice evaluates abstain under empty evidence. Shortcut controls quantify the action-label prior explained by source and intent metadata, while source/evidence-novel slices characterize transfer boundaries. The resulting interface separates action-label prediction from evidence-linked claim selection under mixed evidence.

Autonomous agents deployed in regulated domains must produce a verification artifact per consequential output: a record an auditor can re-execute offline, capturing what was claimed, against what source, by whom, when, and how. Production verification today splits into two unstandardized halves. Probabilistic verdict patterns (self-consistency voting, reviewer LLM ensembles) produce judgments, not artifacts. Artifact-producing patterns (RAG, tool-augmented traces, generator-verifier loops) produce vendor-specific records no external auditor can reconstruct without bespoke integration. Pramana defines the missing wire format. Every consequential agent output is wrapped in a typed ClaimAttestation with one of four variants (measurement, inference, analogy, citation), each paired with a verify() operation against the recorded source. verify() is deterministic for MeasurementClaim and CitationClaim. For InferenceClaim and AnalogyClaim, determinism is conditional on the oracle (audit-replayable when LLM-backed). The four-way typology derives from classical Indian epistemology (pramana, valid means of knowledge). The lifecycle is specified in TLA+ and exhaustively verified under TLC across three symmetry-reduced models: 38,563 distinct reachable states, zero invariant violations. The Python reference implementation passes 84 tests. An A2A and MCP wire-extension manifest layers three deployment-grade invariants: reachability, SLA bound, and offline re-verifiability. An exploratory pilot (n=100, 2,275 reviewer calls) probes LLM-as-judge in code generation. The strongest observation is a 40-percentage-point raw FPR delta across corpora, consistent with reference-solution quality contributing significantly. The pilot does not validate Pramana on its own; the structural argument and formal verification do that.

Claim verification is an important problem in high-stakes settings, including health and finance. When information underpinning claims is incomplete or conflicting, uncertain answers may be more appropriate than binary true or false classifications. In all cases, faithful explanations of the considerations determining the final verdict are crucial. We introduce inference-time argumentation (ITA), a trainable neurosymbolic framework for ternary claim verification in which a formal argumentation semantics giving the strength of claims is used both (i) to guide LLM training as models learn to generate arguments and assign them base scores (representing intrinsic strengths) and (ii) to compute ternary (true/false/uncertain) predictions from generated, scored arguments. As a result, at training time, argument generation and scoring can be optimised according to the quality of the induced argumentative predictions. Moreover, at inference time, the final prediction is faithful, by construction, to the arguments and scores determining the verdict, rather than being justified by a potentially unfaithful post-hoc reasoning trace as in conventional reasoning models. We finally show that, on two datasets for ternary claim verification, ITA improves upon argumentative baselines and can perform competitively against non-argumentative direct-prediction baselines, while providing verdicts that are computed deterministically from explicit, inspectable argumentative structures.

Grounded multi-video question answering over real-world news events requires systems to surface query-relevant evidence across heterogeneous video archives while attributing every claim to its supporting source. We introduce CRAFT (Critic-Refined Adaptive Key-Frame Targeting), a query-conditioned pipeline that combines dynamic keyframe selection, per-video ASR with multilingual fallback, and a hybrid critic loop to iteratively verify and repair claims before consolidation. The pipeline integrates UNLI temporal entailment, DeBERTa-v3 cross-claim screening, and a Llama-3.2-3B adjudicator, with a final citation-merging stage that emits each fact once with all supporting source identifiers. On MAGMaR 2026, CRAFT achieves the best overall average (0.739), reference recall (0.810), and citation F1 (0.635). We further evaluate on a MAGMaR-style conversion of WikiVideo with 52 non-overlapping event queries, where CRAFT also performs strongly (0.823 Avg), showing that its claim-centric evidence aggregation generalizes beyond MAGMaR. Ablations show that atomic claims, ASR, and the critic loop drive the main gains over the vanilla query-conditioned baseline. Code and implementation details are publicly available at https://github.com/bhosalems/CRAFT.

With recent semantic query processing engines, semantic aggregation has become a primitive operator, enabling the reduction of a relation into a natural language aggregate using an LLM. However, the resulting semantic aggregate may contain claims that are not grounded in the underlying relation. Verifying such claims is challenging: they often involve quantifiers, groupings, and comparisons over relations that far exceed LLM context windows and require a costly combination of semantic and symbolic processing. We present Evergreen, a system that recasts claim verification as a semantic query processing task with tailored optimizations and provenance capture. Evergreen compiles each claim into a declarative semantic verification query that can execute on the same query engine used to produce the aggregate. To reduce cost, Evergreen avoids unnecessary LLM calls through verification-aware optimizations, including early stopping, relevance sorting, and estimation with confidence sequences, as well as general-purpose optimizations for semantic queries, such as operator fusion, similarity filtering, and prompt caching. Each verdict is accompanied by citations that identify a minimal set of tuples justifying the result, with semantics based on semiring provenance for first-order logic. On a benchmark of production-inspired workloads over restaurant review and customer support datasets, Evergreen's optimized configurations occupy the entire cost-quality Pareto frontier. With a strong LLM, Evergreen preserves verification quality at an F1 of 0.94 while reducing cost by 3.1x relative to unoptimized verification; with a substantially weaker LLM, it surpasses the strongest external baseline's F1 (0.87 vs. 0.83) at 7.0x lower cost.

Biomedical findings often seem to conflict across studies, but many of these differences are context-dependent rather than true contradictions. Variations in cohort, geography, assay protocol, disease subtype, and clinical setting can make both claims locally valid. Existing NLI and scientific claim-verification benchmarks reduce such cases to entailment, contradiction, or neutral, failing to capture the contextual structure behind divergence. To address this, we introduce BioDivergence, an evaluation framework with a six-class conflict taxonomy, a 13-axis divergence ontology, and four structured outputs per claim pair: conflict type, divergence axes, dominant confounder, and reconciliation explanation. We release BioDivergence-Silver-v1.0, an article-disjoint silver benchmark of 11,865 claim pairs across five biomedical domains, alongside a legacy deduplicated variant for comparison. Results show notable ranking differences between the two variants, with the fine-tuned reference model dropping about 12 points under the article-disjoint setting, while Mistral-7B-Instruct-v0.3 achieves 0.5523 accuracy and 0.3894 contextual-F1 on the 842-example primary test set. BioDivergence offers a more faithful way to distinguish contextual divergence from direct contradiction and to separate article-level memorization from genuine task learning.

Peer review is central to scientific publishing, yet reviewers frequently include claims that are subjective, rhetorical, or misaligned with the submitted work. Assessing whether review statements are factual and verifiable is crucial for fairness and accountability. At the scale of modern conferences and journals, manually inspecting the grounding of such claims is infeasible. We present Peerispect, an interactive system that operationalizes claim-level verification in peer reviews by extracting check-worthy claims from peer reviews, retrieving relevant evidence from the manuscript, and verifying the claims through natural language inference. Results are presented through a visual interface that highlights evidence directly in the paper, enabling rapid inspection and interpretation. Peerispect is designed as a modular Information Retrieval (IR) pipeline, supporting alternative retrievers, rerankers, and verifiers, and is intended for use by reviewers, authors, and program committees. We demonstrate Peerispect through a live, publicly available demo (https://app.reviewer.ly/app/peerispect) and API services (https://github.com/Reviewerly-Inc/Peerispect), accompanied by a video tutorial (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pc9RkvkUh14).

We present a novel approach for claim verification from tabular data documents. Recent LLM-based approaches either employ complex pretraining/fine-tuning or decompose verification into subtasks, often lacking comprehensive explanations and generalizability. To address these limitations, we propose a Multi-Agentic framework for Claim verification (MACE) consisting of three specialized agents: Planner, Executor, and Verifier. Instead of elaborate finetuning, each agent employs a zero-shot Chain-of-Thought setup to perform its tasks. MACE produces interpretable verification traces, with the Planner generating explicit reasoning strategies, the Executor providing detailed computation steps, and the Verifier validating the logic. Experiments demonstrate that MACE achieves state-of-the-art (SOTA) performance on two datasets and performs on par with the best models on two others, while achieving 80--100% of best performance with substantially smaller models: 27--92B parameters versus 235B. This combination of competitive performance, memory efficiency, and transparent reasoning highlights our framework's effectiveness.

Evidence-grounded generation produces summaries whose claims should be supported by supplied evidence, but claim-level verifiers provide noisy feedback and can reward models that simply say less. We study this problem in clinical Brief Hospital Course summarization, where outputs must remain grounded in patient-specific EHR evidence. We introduce VERI-DPO, a preference-mining framework that converts noisy claim verification into coverage-controlled summary-level preferences. For each evidence-window prompt, VERI-DPO samples multiple candidate summaries, decomposes them into claims, verifies each claim against patient evidence, and forms a preference pair only when the chosen summary has better aggregate verifier-estimated support while retaining comparable verifiable content. Standard Direct Preference Optimization then distills these pairs into a single-sample policy, avoiding inference-time reranking. On patient-disjoint MIMIC-III-Ext-VeriFact-BHC test data, VERI-DPO reduces Not Supported rates from 10.7% to 1.9% under the mining verifier and from 11.6% to 6.4% under a separately prompted GPT-4o judge. In 100 blinded pairwise assessments by two domain researchers, VERI-DPO is preferred over the base model 56 times versus 18 times for factual faithfulness. In a locked zero-shot MIMIC-IV-Ext-BHC transfer test with 1,000 patients and no model adaptation, VERI-DPO lowers Not Supported rates with nearly unchanged scored-claim counts. Multi-seed ablations show that verifier-guided pair construction drives the gains, while coverage and anti-degeneration controls prevent apparent factuality improvements from coming from shorter or less checkable outputs.